Nobody Wins: The Jorge Polanco Trade

[tony&rodney]

2 hours ago, harmony55 said:

Last offseason at least one Seattle fan thought Jorge Polanco might not represent an upgrade at second base:

 

Harmony, your'e back. How did the year go for Seattle fans?

[stringer bell]

54 minutes ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

How much was DeSclafani's 2024 contract? 

I believe he got $12M, paid equally by SF, Seattle and the Twins.

[Doctor Gast]

Remember that beyond MN not getting anything for '24, they threw in $8MM. OMG, we didn't save any money, it's absolutely crazy to me.

[harmony55]

1 hour ago, tony&rodney said:

Harmony, your'e back. How did the year go for Seattle fans?

Disappointing in light of high expectations.

Over the past four seasons the Mariners have the league's fourth-best cumulative regular-season record but have landed a postseason berth only once, finishing one game behind the final Wild Card slot twice, and two games back once.

Seattle should return the core of the club that was sixth in the league in run differential. The M's can't expect to repeat the durability of this year's starting rotation but hope for healthy returns of relievers Matt Brash, Gregory Santos and Gabe Speier.

This year the Mariners posted a team wRC+ of 104, including a league-leading wRC+ of 118 after August 15. Like most teams, Seattle would welcome improved hitting but the M's are not starting at the bottom of the barrel.

Thanks for asking.

[DocBauer]

I didn't like the trade as I thought Polanco as a 1B/DH who could play a little 2B/3B once in a while made more sense than grabbing DeScalfini as an injury recovering HOPE for the rotation.

Obviously, the entire trade turned out to be much about nothing on the surface.

But I think this trade is a little bit deeper than the surface.

Topa, who still has at least 1 option, could help fill in middle relief in 2025 for a pretty small deal. The knee appears sound now, and he has the offseason to make sure it is so. He alone could make the trade a minor "win" since we like to attach winners and losers in trades. 

I'm not a big fan of Gonzalez, but he's still young, has some bat to ball talent that might be harnessed, power potential, and a reportedly good arm. I think he's a bit of a longshot...never quite bought in to his top 100 listing...but might still make it, or provide some additional talent in a trade package.

Bowen was an arm the Twins almost drafted. I want to say it was he or Culpepper? But he was on their board. He took a step back in 2024. He probably needs to move to the pen based on age/level and 2024 results. But what if he finds a serious role as a RP?

The $ saved also allowed the Twins to sign Santana for a solid season of help. 

Ultimately, this deal didn't do anything to greatly alter the 2024 season for either party. But Seattle basically got next to nothing from Polanco, and the Twins got a decent year from Santana, Topa as a potentially solid pen piece for 2025, and a couple prospects with at least some upside.

Not any kind of major win, but if we're going to keep score, yes, the Twins won this deal.

[DocBauer]

3 hours ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

I thought DeSclafani had a $12,000,000 contract for 2024.

Most of his contract was paid by a combination of the Giants and Mariners. He only cost the Twins somewhere between $4-5M.

[DJL44]

4 hours ago, bean5302 said:

If the Twins just declined the option on Polanco, they're in exactly the same spot, but with $5.25MM more to spend. If you like Gonzalez, that's fine, but he wasn't going to help fill any of the holes the Twins had in 2024.

$5.25M which they would have spent on a different guy like DeSclafani. I don't know why that trade was expected to fill all the holes for 2024. The goal of a trade is to gain more than you give up. If they don't get exactly what they want for 2024 they can make a different trade. It's not like they have a one-transaction-per-offseason limit.

[DJL44]

2 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

Remember that beyond MN not getting anything for '24, they threw in $8MM. OMG, we didn't save any money, it's absolutely crazy to me.

That's completely wrong. Seattle put in cash, not the Twins.

Twins trade Jorge Polanco to Mariners in 5-player deal

[bean5302]

11 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

$5.25M which they would have spent on a different guy like DeSclafani. I don't know why that trade was expected to fill all the holes for 2024. The goal of a trade is to gain more than you give up. If they don't get exactly what they want for 2024 they can make a different trade. It's not like they have a one-transaction-per-offseason limit.

"All" the holes? Anyway, it doesn't matter since you're convinced the outcome would have been the same no matter what the Twins did it seems. 

[DJL44]

4 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

"All" the holes? Anyway, it doesn't matter since you're convinced the outcome would have been the same no matter what the Twins did it seems. 

No, I said the Twins should have gone for ALL prospects and not looked for ANY near-term help for 2024 in the Polanco trade. Then they would have had more prospects AND all of the $$ savings. That's far better than non-tendering him.

There was a comment from Falvey that the trade was held up so long because they wanted some MLB talent in return. That was the mistake.

[tony&rodney]

2 hours ago, harmony55 said:

Disappointing in light of high expectations.

Over the past four seasons the Mariners have the league's fourth-best cumulative regular-season record but have landed a postseason berth only once, finishing one game behind the final Wild Card slot twice, and two games back once.

Seattle should return the core of the club that was sixth in the league in run differential. The M's can't expect to repeat the durability of this year's starting rotation but hope for healthy returns of relievers Matt Brash, Gregory Santos and Gabe Speier.

This year the Mariners posted a team wRC+ of 104, including a league-leading wRC+ of 118 after August 15. Like most teams, Seattle would welcome improved hitting but the M's are not starting at the bottom of the barrel.

Thanks for asking.

I'm still a Twins fan (since 1961) and still like the Mariners too. You might remember that we had some good back and forths on the Polanco situation last offseason. If I recall you suggested a Lewis for a SP too. 

Well, the Twins and Mariners are back at it and one wonders whether a Lewis and Paddack for Miller might work this year? Seattle might find a better team for trades this time though.

[USAFChief]

The trade made the 2024 Twins weaker.

That much cannot be refuted.

As I and a few others said at the time.

 

 

[harmony55]

12 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

I'm still a Twins fan (since 1961) and still like the Mariners too. You might remember that we had some good back and forths on the Polanco situation last offseason. If I recall you suggested a Lewis for a SP too. 

Well, the Twins and Mariners are back at it and one wonders whether a Lewis and Paddack for Miller might work this year? Seattle might find a better team for trades this time though.

It's probably a year late for a trade of Royce Lewis for Bryce Miller as their stocks moved in opposite directions this season.

A year ago Baseball Trade Values assigned Lewis a surplus value of $74 million and Miller a surplus value of $25.6 million. BTV recently assigned Lewis a surplus value of $26.3 million and Miller a surplus value of $49.4 million.

FWIW Chris Paddack was assigned a surplus value of $13.3 million a year ago and a negative $1.6 million recently.

Because of a lack of starting pitching depth, Seattle is unlikely to trade a starter from the current rotation. The Mariners can't count on getting 149 starts again from their top five starters.

The only remotely feasible trade candidate from the Seattle rotation would be righthander Luis Castillo, whom the Mariners value far more than the negative $30.6 million assigned at Baseball Trade Values. Regardless, the Twins probably are not in a position to take on Castillo's roughly $24 million annual salary for three years.

FWIW Baseball Trade Values assigns current surplus values of $111.4 million for George Kirby, $65.6 million for Logan Gilbert, $50.5 million for Bryan Woo and $49.4 million for Miller.

[Major League Ready]

16 hours ago, DJL44 said:

No, I said the Twins should have gone for ALL prospects and not looked for ANY near-term help for 2024 in the Polanco trade. Then they would have had more prospects AND all of the $$ savings. That's far better than non-tendering him.

There was a comment from Falvey that the trade was held up so long because they wanted some MLB talent in return. That was the mistake.

Good point.  At the time, I wrote here that I wished they could have landed Harry Ford but I just don't think they were willing to give up a better prospect than Gonzalez for Polanco.  My recollection was Gonzalez was #5 in their system and harry Ford was #4 but much tougher to pry a good catching prospect away.   I would have taken Ford/Bowen instead of Gonzalez/Bowen/Topa/Disclafani in a heartbeat.  That said, Ford did not do quite as well at AA but he is still a great prospect and that kind of athlete as a catcher would be great to have.

Polanco was basically a replacement level player last year.  The Twins lost nothing in trading him even if some fans have a hard time accepting that reality.  The Twins sold high and the money was better spent elsewhere.  They should have given them Kepler too and asked for Ford.

[Jeff K]

On 11/2/2024 at 10:05 AM, DJL44 said:

The Twins won the trade by saving the cash they would have otherwise paid Polanco. They used that money to sign Carlos Santana for one season which puts them way ahead of the Mariners on this trade.

I agree.  While I enjoyed Polanco's run with the Twins, all indicators pointed towards his performance falling off significantly.  And it did.  At the least, this was addition by subtraction and hopefully the Twins get something out of Topa this season.  And no way should the Twins try to bring him back unless he takes a minor league contract.

[tony&rodney]

51 minutes ago, harmony55 said:

It's probably a year late for a trade of Royce Lewis for Bryce Miller as their stocks moved in opposite directions this season.

A year ago Baseball Trade Values assigned Lewis a surplus value of $74 million and Miller a surplus value of $25.6 million. BTV recently assigned Lewis a surplus value of $26.3 million and Miller a surplus value of $49.4 million.

FWIW Chris Paddack was assigned a surplus value of $13.3 million a year ago and a negative $1.6 million recently.

Because of a lack of starting pitching depth, Seattle is unlikely to trade a starter from the current rotation. The Mariners can't count on getting 149 starts again from their top five starters.

The only remotely feasible trade candidate from the Seattle rotation would be righthander Luis Castillo, whom the Mariners value far more than the negative $30.6 million assigned at Baseball Trade Values. Regardless, the Twins probably are not in a position to take on Castillo's roughly $24 million annual salary for three years.

FWIW Baseball Trade Values assigns current surplus values of $111.4 million for George Kirby, $65.6 million for Logan Gilbert, $50.5 million for Bryan Woo and $49.4 million for Miller.

Agree that Seattle does not really match up with Minnesota, but one never knows. 

On another note, ignore BTV. That site is merely entertainment for fantasy looks. No team pays any attention to their values. There may be some similarity on the odd occasion but mostly BTV is off the mark.

[tony&rodney]

6 minutes ago, Jeff K said:

I agree.  While I enjoyed Polanco's run with the Twins, all indicators pointed towards his performance falling off significantly.  And it did.  At the least, this was addition by subtraction and hopefully the Twins get something out of Topa this season.  And no way should the Twins try to bring him back unless he takes a minor league contract.

Hindsight is 20-20. I agree that Polanco had a poor year for the Mariners.

As far as the money goes .... stated several times already .... the Twins brought back Kyle Farmer ($6.75M) knowing they were trading Polanco, paid DeSclafani ($4M), Topa (@$1M), and also paid some peanuts to Gonzalez and Bowen. The maths say keeping Polanco would have cost less by a minimal amount. FWIW, one should not bet that Topa does better than Polanco in 2025. 

The Polanco trade totally failed in making the Twins a better team in 2024. The addition of Santana does not come from any savings according to the maths above.

[JD-TWINS]

On 11/2/2024 at 10:05 AM, DJL44 said:

The Twins won the trade by saving the cash they would have otherwise paid Polanco. They used that money to sign Carlos Santana for one season which puts them way ahead of the Mariners on this trade.

Absolutely correct!!

Unless Polanco struck out 35% at home and 23% on the road, equating to his 29% average, (his previous overall average being 24 plus %) the batting eye theory doesn’t wash. Never heard of some huge disparity for the Team leading A.L. in strikeouts the past couple seasons, home and away - right??

IMO, not popular theory, is Polanco was physically washed before the trade & exemplified the fact throughout the ‘24 season.

Gonzalez has a 40% chance of making The Show - just another prospect that MAY or may NOT come to fruition in another couple years. Topa can be a contributor and at $1.3M is hardly too costly for the organization.

No way it is sensible to sign Polanco on any kind of one year deal for ‘25.

[harmony55]

58 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Agree that Seattle does not really match up with Minnesota, but one never knows. 

On another note, ignore BTV. That site is merely entertainment for fantasy looks. No team pays any attention to their values. There may be some similarity on the odd occasion but mostly BTV is off the mark.

After this season Baseball Trade Values was probably accurate in downgrading the trade value of Royce Lewis and upgrading the trade value of Bryce Miller but the specific numbers are up for debate.

BTV at least examines relevant factors:

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-major-leaguers

... but different people can assign different weight to each factor.

This Seattle fan sees the BTV value high on George Kirby and low on Luis Castillo but other fans can offer contrasting views.

It's important to distinguish probability from prediction or projection. Baseball Trade Values reviews its accuracy periodically:

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/articles/trade-deadline-analysis-how-did-our-model-do-1

[JD-TWINS]

1 hour ago, tony&rodney said:

Hindsight is 20-20. I agree that Polanco had a poor year for the Mariners.

As far as the money goes .... stated several times already .... the Twins brought back Kyle Farmer ($6.75M) knowing they were trading Polanco, paid DeSclafani ($4M), Topa (@$1M), and also paid some peanuts to Gonzalez and Bowen. The maths say keeping Polanco would have cost less by a minimal amount. FWIW, one should not bet that Topa does better than Polanco in 2025. 

The Polanco trade totally failed in making the Twins a better team in 2024. The addition of Santana does not come from any savings according to the maths above.

4 players on the 40 man for what Polanco was paid plus $5.5M…..,and two prospects.

DeSclafano washed out (calculated risk) - two young guys weren’t expected to do anything in ‘25 - Topa had a lower body injury and is under Team control going forward. Farmer was hurt most of the first 4 months and hence, greatly underperformed in those months prior to August 1st - hit well from there - most everyone else collapsed.

If a Team is looking for starter depth, 2B depth, relief depth………I do not understand how the trade with Seattle didn’t make both roster & $$ saving sense?

I don’t get the hindsight comment? Polanco played around 180 games total over ‘22-‘23 seasons. He was obviously breaking down physically. If he had better health in ‘24 (was on pace through June) he may have lead the A.L. in strikeouts.

I don’t wish Polanco any ill will …… nor do I wish Kepler any ill will ……. time comes to move on……to me, Polanco’s performance in ‘24 proved his decline. If Topa pitches with health, he will be a contributor ……. maybe obvious, but I don’t think Polanco going forward is capable of being anywhere near the guy he was for the Twins.

[Riverbrian]

I'll let others debate the winners and losers of the trade. 

To me... it was always about the following question. 

In the context of where the Twins were in the competitive window. Did it make sense to roster one bigger better piece or break that bigger better piece into multiple lesser pieces? 

If you don't understand that question. Your response will matter very little to me. Just keep debating who won the deal with others. Don't look at the question with hindsight... look at the question at the time of the trade. 

If you had the ability to predict Polanco's downfall due to injury or age.

Good for you. That's impressive. Seattle didn't know what you knew. They gave up a lot for Polanco. The Twins won the trade based on what Seattle gave up. 

I will not use hindsight.

AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE. It was my contention that Polanco was the best player involved in the trade. And the best player out of the players who were acquired with the money saved in the trade. Even after knowing how it turned out with hindsight... it doesn't change the question I had at the time in the current context of the Twins.

Did it make sense to roster one bigger better piece or break that bigger better piece into multiple lesser pieces?   

If anyone wants to talk about log jams... Just don't. 

If anyone wants to talk about how Cleveland, Tampa and Oakland built their roster over and over again... just don't. 

I wasn't sure while it was happening but I was drug through the mud for just asking the question and forced to defend the other side. 

As of November 2024. as we get ready to build for 2025 with the full benefit of hindsight.

I believe the Twins won the trade and I believe we absolutely shouldn't have made the trade, 

If you don't understand how I feel both ways... Go back to the bolded question.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Major League Ready]

21 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

Hindsight is 20-20. I agree that Polanco had a poor year for the Mariners.

As far as the money goes .... stated several times already .... the Twins brought back Kyle Farmer ($6.75M) knowing they were trading Polanco, paid DeSclafani ($4M), Topa (@$1M), and also paid some peanuts to Gonzalez and Bowen. The maths say keeping Polanco would have cost less by a minimal amount. FWIW, one should not bet that Topa does better than Polanco in 2025. 

The Polanco trade totally failed in making the Twins a better team in 2024. The addition of Santana does not come from any savings according to the maths above.

They did not pay for Kyle Farmer with the Polanco savings given Farmer was in the previous year's budget.  They needed to come up with $715K to cover his increase.   Hindsight being 20/20 you could say the Farmer money should have also been reallocated, but they did not need to get rid of Polanco to pay for farmer.

[Jeff K]

21 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

Hindsight is 20-20. I agree that Polanco had a poor year for the Mariners.

As far as the money goes .... stated several times already .... the Twins brought back Kyle Farmer ($6.75M) knowing they were trading Polanco, paid DeSclafani ($4M), Topa (@$1M), and also paid some peanuts to Gonzalez and Bowen. The maths say keeping Polanco would have cost less by a minimal amount. FWIW, one should not bet that Topa does better than Polanco in 2025. 

The Polanco trade totally failed in making the Twins a better team in 2024. The addition of Santana does not come from any savings according to the maths above.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but minor league contracts are not part of the equation.  Additionally, I am not sure the Farmer decision is related, although I acknowledge that it's part of the overall infield equation.  Polanco's poor season was entirely predictable and I expect his performance to deteriorate even further in 2025.

[Major League Ready]

36 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

If anyone wants to talk about how Cleveland, Tampa and Oakland built their roster over and over again... just don't. 

Is it really a good idea to ignore what practices have undeniably produced the most winning teams over the past couple of decades if it does not support what we believe should be done. Should we assume to know how to build a team better than the collective abilities of those three organizations that continue to follow these strategies.

[tony&rodney]

6 minutes ago, Jeff K said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but minor league contracts are not part of the equation.  Additionally, I am not sure the Farmer decision is related, although I acknowledge that it's part of the overall infield equation.  Polanco's poor season was entirely predictable and I expect his performance to deteriorate even further in 2025.

I won't correct you. Those whom are fixed on knowing how Polanco was going to perform have their position. I accept the differences of opinion. Keeping Farmer and trading Polanco was related per Falvey. It's all good.

I am curious what you are predicting for Royce Lewis and Edouard Julien for 2025?

[tony&rodney]

24 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

They did not pay for Kyle Farmer with the Polanco savings given Farmer was in the previous year's budget.  They needed to come up with $715K to cover his increase.   Hindsight being 20/20 you could say the Farmer money should have also been reallocated, but they did not need to get rid of Polanco to pay for farmer.

So you are saying that if the Twins had plans to keep Polanco they would still have tendered Farmer. Ok. I guess we disagree and you could be correct. It doesn't matter really. I Thought I remembered Farmer being surprised that he was tendered a contract. It's all good though.

[Major League Ready]

15 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

So you are saying that if the Twins had plans to keep Polanco they would still have tendered Farmer. Ok. I guess we disagree and you could be correct. It doesn't matter really. I Thought I remembered Farmer being surprised that he was tendered a contract. It's all good though.

No.  I am saying that in terms of the net payroll +/- from 2023 to 2024 that Farmer's cost was already accounted for other than a $715K increase.  Therefore, it makes no sense to allocate the savings from Polanco to Farmer.  Had they kept Polanco instead the net Change would have been Polanco's salary went up $3M and they would have jettisoned Farmer's $5.85 for a net change of -$2.85M.  I said at the time they could have gotten rid of both.

[Riverbrian]

5 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

I won't correct you. Those whom are fixed on knowing how Polanco was going to perform have their position. I accept the differences of opinion. Keeping Farmer and trading Polanco was related per Falvey. It's all good.

I am curious what you are predicting for Royce Lewis and Edouard Julien for 2025?

You are spot on. 

At the time... it might have been difficult to see how Farmer was connected to the Polanco trade. I didn't see it at first but it didn't take long to eventually see it. 

After the dust settled... you could see that Farmer was indeed clearly connected.

Once Farmers 2024 role was clearly defined, you can see that he was clearly connected to the Polanco trade.   

Once you look at his 6 million cost swimming upstream against a downstream budget... you can see that he was clearly connected to the Polanco trade. 

Others can debate the shallow waters of weather the trade itself was a win or loss. Gabriel Gonzalez by himself may make this trade a win for the Twins.

However, in order to trade the Polonco 10 million... you had to keep the Farmer 6 million and then add the DeSclafani 4 Million and the Margot 4 million and the Santana 5.5 million (which we both can acknowledge in hindsight that Santana worked out).  

The team spent 19.5 million to shed 10 million. If the Twins won the trade... OK... maybe they did but Farmer, Margot and DeSclafani negated the trade win. 

You see it. Good luck with the folks in the shallow waters who don't.  

[Major League Ready]

35 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

You are spot on. 

At the time... it might have been difficult to see how Farmer was connected to the Polanco trade. I didn't see it at first but it didn't take long to eventually see it. 

After the dust settled... you could see that Farmer was indeed clearly connected.

Once Farmers 2024 role was clearly defined, you can see that he was clearly connected to the Polanco trade.   

Once you look at his 6 million cost swimming upstream against a downstream budget... you can see that he was clearly connected to the Polanco trade. 

Others can debate the shallow waters of weather the trade itself was a win or loss. Gabriel Gonzalez by himself may make this trade a win for the Twins.

However, in order to trade the Polonco 10 million... you had to keep the Farmer 6 million and then add the DeSclafani 4 Million and the Margot 4 million and the Santana 5.5 million (which we both can acknowledge in hindsight that Santana worked out).  

The team spent 19.5 million to shed 10 million. If the Twins won the trade... OK... maybe they did but Farmer, Margot and DeSclafani negated the trade win. 

You see it. Good luck with the folks in the shallow waters who don't.  

Why would you count the Margot money given he came from the Dodgers and they play completely different positions?  Also, they we already spending 5.585M on Farmer so they did not add $6.25M, they added $365K.  

[nicksaviking]

On 11/2/2024 at 11:52 AM, DJL44 said:

In hindsight, Falvey should have gone for more prospects and less MLB ready help.

*Potential* MLB ready help, because alas, they got none.